Soaring Safety Statistics
Quinton Hoole
This is my first visit to this news group, so please excuse me if my
question has been answered before.
I'm looking for hard statistical facts on gliding safety, preferably
compared with other forms of avaition and other "hazardous" sports. I'm
thinking of something along the lines of average number of
fatalities/serious injuries/incidents per flying hour/launch etc.
Any pointers?
Quinton Hoole
Cape Gliding Club, South Africa
http://www.cgc.org.za
Tom Seim
will find reports that include statistics. As might be expected most
accidents are the result of pilot error (of course it might be the other
pilot that makes the error!). My guess is that there is about one fatality
for every 50,000 glider flights.
I don't know how meaningful these statistics are because you, by and large,
control your own level of safety. The first step is through very good and
thorough training. Check out your instructor (not all instructors are
equal), get references. I met one instructor once who said he didn't believe
in glide angles (he said this after one of his students nearly went into
power lines trying to glide back to the airport into a headwind in a 1-26)!
He should have taken up a different sport that doesn't deal with gliding;
say ballooning. Insist that your instructor demand your top performance, and
spend some more time and money on instruction than the bare minimum.
Good luck!
Tom Seim, 2G DG-400
Richland, WA
Quinton Hoole <qho...@ecentric.co.za> wrote in message
news:38FB38ED...@ecentric.co.za...
Ian Fevrier
the querry form to return reports on accidents involving gliders.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm
Ian Fevrier
Caracole
There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from which
to buildany meaningful statistics on "relative" safety. Most
relationships show risk per hour or item of exposure.... ie.
carwrecks per mile driven. Auto insurance companies confirm miles
driven by the machine by odometer readings at time of wreckage.
One fellow suggested you look at the USA's NTSB web site. That shows
one record of incidents, but is ghoulish reading, and does not reflect
hours of flight participation for "safe" hours logged. There is also a
British accident data base.
Every country has some form of governmental investigation of aviation
accidents. For gliders, this is often a VERY cursory (too brief) exercise
in "fault finding". The government spends little energy on a wreck
hat might involve only 2 persons and usually no damage to anything
(persons or property) on the ground.
Depending on your level of motivation to reassure yourself or ohers that
soaring is a worthwhile and "safe enough" sport, here are some suggestions.
Ask your national soaring body for their guesstimate on annual accident
rate. Ask the LOCAL group with whom you fly, about their LOCAL
record for both school/club ships and privately owned ships.
Ask the local club for the name of their insurance carrier, if any.
Ask the carrier if they would tell you if any claims have been made in
prior five years. They may not be willing to tell you type/event/amount
of settlement, which is actually not important. You only want to know
if school/club answered you truthfully.
Ask school/club for their number of launches/hours in prior year.
Now you have stats that may have some relevance.
If you would like to "play" with the newsgroup in a meaningful way,
collect these numbers for other South African clubs, and post your
findings back to this group.
(Yeah, this sounds like work, doesn't it?)
All of us would be interested in your findings. This is a recurring
question. We all believe that soaring is safer than driving to the
field. But many pilots or groups (schools/clubs) are reluctant to
reveal "financial" data that indicated the health or activity of their
organization, via hours or launch numbers.
Cindy B
Caracole Soaring
Ian Fevrier <ifev...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:%tQK4.1863$%4.1...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
> You may try visiting the NTSB website>
snip
>
> "Quinton Hoole" <qho...@ecentric.co.za> wrote in message
> news:38FB38ED...@ecentric.co.za...
Raphael Warshaw
Caracole <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:xS3L4.1901$9C3....@news2.randori.com...
> Quinton:
>
> There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from
which
>snip
A very rough calculation based on the number of soaring fatalities vs the
number of pilots and an estimate of the number of hours spent flying
suggests about a 4x greater likelihood of a fatal in a glider than an
automobile. A cursory look also suggests that failure to properly assemble
a glider has a more drastic consequence than similar neglect of an
automobile.
To keep things in perspective, my risk from all causes of dying at my
present age is 1 in 80 and will at some point reach 100%. I personally
think the risk is reasonable. Knowing that the risk is greater makes me
(hopefully) more careful during the (all too) brief time that I spend in
gliders. Never-the less, the risk is almost certainly greater flying than
driving to the airport.
Ray Warshaw
gary p. bushouse
Caracole wrote:
> Quinton:
>
> There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from which
Howard Loewen
The comparison between automobile accidents and glider accidents is worse if
you consider that many people
killed driving a car where drunk/stoned/or otherwise impaired at the time
and not many people killed in soaring accidents where similarly
impaired. Stated another way, you can dramatically improve your chances of
not being killed in an automobile by
simply choosing not to operate one while impaired.
The statement about the drive out to the gliderport being more dangerous
than the actual flight is just not true. One must also
factor in how much time one spends driving a car versus how much time one
spends flying a glider. If your odds of being killed
in a glider are 4 times greater than those of being killed in an automobile,
but the average person annually spends ten times as much time behind
the wheel of a car as the average glider pilot does flying, then the flight
is likely closer to 40 times more likely to result in a fatal accident
than the drive to the glider port (assuming the drive to the gliderport is
roughly as long as the flight).
We're involved in a high risk sport.
Howard Loewen
"Raphael Warshaw" <r...@wdds.com> wrote in message
news:8djepj$fdj$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
>
> Caracole <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
> news:xS3L4.1901$9C3....@news2.randori.com...
> > Quinton:
> >
> > There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from
> which
>
Sula
>The comparison between automobile accidents and glider accidents is worse
if
>you consider that many people
>killed driving a car where drunk/stoned/or otherwise impaired at the time
>and not many people killed in soaring accidents where similarly
>impaired. Stated another way, you can dramatically improve your chances of
>not being killed in an automobile by
>simply choosing not to operate one while impaired.
Fortunately, the same kind of improvement is available in flying: study the
mistakes of other pilots and make plans to avoid them.
Sula
>We all believe that soaring is safer than driving to the field.
Some may (though probably fewer today than before Bruno Gantenbrink's
article). Yet is there any way this belief can be supported?
Peter Ramm
insurers' view. They equate soaring with driving a high-powered motorcycle
on public roads. I agree - this is a risky way to spend time. Examine
every ghoulish report you can find, and allow it to instruct your own
operations.
Caracole <Cara...@ccis.com> wrote in message
news:xS3L4.1901$9C3....@news2.randori.com...
> Quinton:
>
> There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from
which
Raphael Warshaw
Howard Loewen <loew...@mbnet.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:9jCL4.9342$kY1....@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca...
>
>
> The comparison between automobile accidents and glider accidents is worse
if
> you consider that many people
> killed driving a car where drunk/stoned/or otherwise impaired at the time
The problem with non-comercial aviation statistics in general and soaring
statistics in particular is that it is impossible to get good figures for
hours of exposure. In addition, the relatively small number of fatalities
(and pilots) results in calculations that do not reach statistical
significance.
I'm sure I'm not the only rated pilot with a current BFR who flys
sporadically, so even these numbers don't help.
While the number of flight hours (and hours in type) are recorded for
aviation accidents, other potential risk factors such as age and level of
function are not. There are relatively simple tests of vigilance,
dexterity, descrimination, peripheral fields and reaction-time available
which might be applied prospectively to see if there are factors which
predict accidents.
If there is interest, I could bring some of these tests to a future
convention for pilot self-evaluation and enlightenment.
Ray Warshaw
Tango4
I commute a BMW 1100 into London, drive, soar and fly the occasional c172.
No wonder my insurers go white when they get a phone call from our houshold
:-0
Ian
Peter Ramm <pr...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca> wrote in message
news:gVEL4.9870$HG1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Bruce Hoult
<i...@imolesworth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Ramm <pr...@spartan.ac.brocku.ca> wrote in message
> news:gVEL4.9870$HG1.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > Having just gone through a high value life insurance procedure, I know my
> > insurers' view. They equate soaring with driving a high-powered
> motorcycle
> > on public roads. I agree - this is a risky way to spend time. Examine
> > every ghoulish report you can find, and allow it to instruct your own
> > operations.
>
> Ouch!
> I commute a BMW 1100 into London, drive, soar and fly the occasional c172.
> No wonder my insurers go white when they get a phone call from our houshold
> :-0
Yeah, much the same here. I zoom around the country and the city on a BMW
R1100RT, fly gliders from tiem to time and aeroplanes and helicopters
whenever I can scrounge a cheap ride. And probably the most dangerous: I
bicycle on public roads...
-- Bruce
Larry Goddard
LG
Dylan Smith
:
:
: The comparison between automobile accidents and glider accidents is worse if
: you consider that many people
: killed driving a car where drunk/stoned/or otherwise impaired at the time
: impaired. Stated another way, you can dramatically improve your chances of
: not being killed in an automobile by
: simply choosing not to operate one while impaired.
But you can't improve your chances of being killed by ANOTHER driver who
is inebriated.
Private aviation is statistically about the same risk as riding a motorcycle
on public roads. However, we can affect our *individual* risk exposure
much more than our poor biker can. Typically, pilots are killed by their
own mistakes, whereas motorcyclists have a much larger proportion of their
risk in the hands of a cager. Also, the more the biker rides, the more
likely he is to come to grief. However, the risk in flying is typically
INVERSELY proportional to the amount of hours flown. Flying is terribly
unforgiving of lack of recent experience if the flight doesn't go completely
nominally.
A consciencious pilot can manage their risk through knowledge. The biker
can manage their risk too - but not to the extent a pilot can.
Finally, one thing to remember about statistics is they are often used
like a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination!
--
Dylan Smith, Houston TX.
Flying: http://www.icct.net/~dyls/flying.html
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Christopher Nicholas
Howard Loewen wrote:
"The statement about the drive out to the gliderport being more
high risk sport".
Sadly, my anecdotal evidence bears out what Harold says. Since 1970 when I
started gliding, I knew personally all the following: FR, died failing to
recover from an inverted flight. TG, killed on the ground as he released a
cable from the tow truck, not realising it was under high tension having
snagged on a runway light. FS, died as his final approach steepened
unaccountably until he hit the ground very hard, short of the runway (in
France, but in a UK glider) - no technical or medical cause found as to why.
(Those three from my under-200-member club.) GC, killed in a collision.
TL, killed in a collision. Total 5, out of maybe 1000 or fewer glider pilots
I have known personally?
Out of gliding, I must have met several thousand people in the last 30
years. I can recall only two killed in car accidents - PR, drove
unaccountably into the back of a parked truck in a lay-by (no technical or
medical cause found as to why); LS, killed by a car coming the other way,
crossing the central reservation of a dual carriageway - thought to be
caused by a dog in the other car being loose and distracting the driver.
(Both worked at the same major car-maker as I did where I must have known
literally thousands of people over the years, many being high-mileage
drivers. None of my social contacts in that time have been fatally injured
in cars.)
Chris N.
Raphael Warshaw
Larry Goddard <la...@siriusimages.com> wrote in message
news:390057C7...@siriusimages.com...
> My granddad was fond of using the truism "Liars figure, and figures lie!"
>
> LG
>
>
Ray Warshaw
Larry Goddard
Raphael Warshaw wrote:
Absolutely! When it comes to statistics, you can make them say whatever you
want them to.
Larry Goddard
"01" USA
Raphael Warshaw
the wrong method, but if the data is good and the appropriate method is
chosen , statistics will help you to understand what you are looking at.
Las Vegas casino operations are a good model to study.
Ray Warshaw
Howard Loewen
8dqbm3$1img$6...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
> Howard Loewen (loew...@mbnet.mb.ca) wrote:
> :
> :
> : The comparison between automobile accidents and glider accidents is
worse if
> : you consider that many people
> : killed driving a car where drunk/stoned/or otherwise impaired at the
time
> : and not many people killed in soaring accidents where similarly
> : impaired. Stated another way, you can dramatically improve your chances
of
> : not being killed in an automobile by
> : simply choosing not to operate one while impaired.
>
> But you can't improve your chances of being killed by ANOTHER driver who
> is inebriated.
That is beside the point. The point is, with one simple action you can
dramatically decrease your
chances of a fatal automobile accident. There is no such quick fix available
for soaring.
> Private aviation is statistically about the same risk as riding a
motorcycle
> on public roads. However, we can affect our *individual* risk exposure
> much more than our poor biker can. Typically, pilots are killed by their
> own mistakes, whereas motorcyclists have a much larger proportion of their
> risk in the hands of a cager. Also, the more the biker rides, the more
> likely he is to come to grief. However, the risk in flying is typically
> INVERSELY proportional to the amount of hours flown. Flying is terribly
> unforgiving of lack of recent experience if the flight doesn't go
completely
> nominally.
>
> A consciences pilot can manage their risk through knowledge. The biker
> can manage their risk too - but not to the extent a pilot can.
>
I'm not completely convinced about this. I certainly know pilots who take
risks and have
paid a very high price for those risks. I also know conscientious,
experienced pilots who fly
regularly and have died from one brief mistake. The assertion that the best
way to stay alive is to
simply not make mistakes is not very useful. I don't know anyone who doesn't
make mistakes. You
should also be careful about the statement that risks are INVERSELY
proportional to hours flown. If this
were the case, then our fatal accidents would have a higher proportion of
low time pilots and I don't think
that this is the case.
> Finally, one thing to remember about statistics is they are often used
> like a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination!
>
Statistical analysis is a very powerful tool, but like any other too it can
be misused. If you
disagree with my analysis, tell me why. Blanket statements like this one add
nothing constructive
to the debate.
It seems to me that we assume a high level of risk when we fly. I don't
think that it is productive
to pretend that this risk doesn't exist.
Howard
Brian Case
but the little bit of research I did on General Avaition Accidents a
few years ago seemed to reveal that it was only true if you eliminated
the accidents of intentionally flying low and flying into bad weather.
Both senerios that can be avoided in GA aircraft.
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
RHallifax
accident as "an idiot." But the true bottom line is that none of us is "bullet
proof," and we should always try to remain mindful of safety considerations,
and the exercise of good judgments.
Blue skies,
Bob
Dylan Smith
: should also be careful about the statement that risks are INVERSELY
: proportional to hours flown. If this
: were the case, then our fatal accidents would have a higher proportion of
: low time pilots and I don't think
: that this is the case.
I would beg to differ.
I've not been in gliding long enough, nor looked at the NTSB etc. reports
for gliders long enough to see whether this is the case in gliding yet, I
must admit.
However, in power flying it certainly looks like the case. The more I
fly, the cheaper my insurance gets for our Cessna 140. I think the insurance
companies have a pretty good handle on how to use the data *properly*.
Why would they reduce my rates as my total time and time in type goes up
if it wasn't the case that statistically, higher time pilots are less
likely to crash an aircraft? Do you think there is a reason why this
is so in power flying, but not so in gliding?
Additionally, I have noticed in the UK AAIB accident reports, which include
total time, time flown in the last 90 days and time flown in the last 28
days - showing the PIC's recency of experience - the largest proportion
of the general aviation accidents happen to low time pilots or pilots
with very few recent hours (once again, this is for power flying)
: > Finally, one thing to remember about statistics is they are often used
: > like a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination!
: >
: Statistical analysis is a very powerful tool, but like any other too it can
: be misused. If you
: disagree with my analysis, tell me why. Blanket statements like this one add
: nothing constructive
: to the debate.
This statement ABSOLUTELY has something constructive to do with this debate:
be skeptical, and MAKE SURE the statistics people are telling you are actually
valid. Too many people just take things at face value. The statement
is a general caveat to anyone who has statistics quoted at them - very
often, the person quoting the statistic is using it for support rather
than illumination, and either missing or failing to reveal some important
aspect of the statistic. Politicians do it all the time. In fact,
anyone making an emotional point tends to use statistics this way.
: It seems to me that we assume a high level of risk when we fly. I don't
: think that it is productive
: to pretend that this risk doesn't exist.
I don't think anyone is - however, it is defeatist to believe that you
cannot influence your OWN saftey and lower your OWN risk in flying, because
you can! It is also important to realise that unlike driving, you
are MUCH more responsible for your own safety. It is much rarer that
someone else kills you when you are pilot in command of an aircraft
versus rider of a motorcycle - especially when you consider the oft-quoted
statistic that over half of the motorcycle accidents are caused by
the other driver.
The point is that although flying might be as statistically dangerous
as riding a motorcycle, you can influence your safety a lot more than the
biker can.
Larry Goddard
> Thats a common fallacy. You can choose the wrong data (or make it up) or
> the wrong method, but if the data is good and the appropriate method is
> chosen , statistics will help you to understand what you are looking at.
> Las Vegas casino operations are a good model to study.
>
> Ray Warshaw
Nope! Las Vegas Casino operations involve mathematically calculatable
"odds". Statistics are a different animal entirely. They depend on
"choosing" data to look at and "choosing" an appropriate method for analyzing
the data. But as Billy Shakespeare said "Ay, there 's the rub!" WHICH data
is one going to "choose" and WHICH method? Which ones you choose depend
largely on your "bent" or "prejudice" or "current mindset" or "favorite
mathematical approach" or any number of other factors.
So in the current discussion of soaring safety, statistics can be shown that
will prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that soaring is a "substantially"
dangerous sport. They can just as easily prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'
that it is no more dangerous than any other average activity. I happen to
believe that soaring is a "fairly" dangerous sport. But I am not convinced of
that because one has "incontrovertible statistics" to prove it.
The real fallacy is to attempt to use statistics to determine "truth". To
find "truth" you need to be looking in the areas of philosophy, religion, or
metaphysics. Statistics are only a tool (usually a tool flawed by personal
interests, desires, mindsets, etc.) to try to understand something. That
doesn't mean that they are not valuable... just an incomplete or imperfect
tool. The problem is that many people try to use that incomplete or imperfect
tool to "prove" that their side of an argument is the "true" one.
While probably overstated (and with an admitted hint of anti-intellectualism),
given the 'flawed' nature of most statistics, I think I'll continue to side
with my Granddad when he said,
"Liars figure, and figures lie".
Larry Goddard
"01" USA
PS: And I didn't even mention the even more popular adage "There are lies,
damned lies, and statistics!" :-)
Robert Johnson
little book available entitled "How To Lie With Statistics".
Bob Johnson 1F
Raphael Warshaw
Robert Johnson <rob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:390C7E2F...@worldnet.att.net...
> For those wanting to pursue the subject, there is a fairly popular
> little book available entitled "How To Lie With Statistics".
>
> Bob Johnson 1F
>
>
>
> Larry Goddard wrote:
> >
English or with statistics.
Ray Warshaw
Robert Hughes
> There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from
which
> to buildany meaningful statistics on "relative" safety
This is a suggestion that I read somewhere else that I think has merit:
When you renew your medical you should be asked to provide a breakdown of
your total hours flown since your last medical. This is easily documented
and submission of your logbook with a signoff should be required. This
would allow us to finally get these type of statistics for all areas of
aviation with excellent reliability. Thoughts?
F.L. Whiteley
"Robert Hughes" <me@robhughes*nospam*.com> wrote in message
news:0VdR4.31435$nB3.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
Sula
Robert Hughes wrote:
>This is a suggestion that I read somewhere else that I think has merit:
>When you renew your medical you should be asked to provide a breakdown of
>your total hours flown since your last medical. This is easily documented
>and submission of your logbook with a signoff should be required. This
>would allow us to finally get these type of statistics for all areas of
>aviation with excellent reliability.
And those who fail to provide this information are to be deemed medically
unfit?
Michael McNulty
except to show a current BFR or currency to carry passengers.
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote:
>
> No medical required for most soaring communities.
>
> "Robert Hughes" <me@robhughes*nospam*.com> wrote in message
> news:0VdR4.31435$nB3.1...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
> > >
> > > There is no good data collection system for glider flight hours, from
> > which
> > > to buildany meaningful statistics on "relative" safety
> >
> > This is a suggestion that I read somewhere else that I think has merit:
> > When you renew your medical you should be asked to provide a breakdown of
> > your total hours flown since your last medical. This is easily documented
> > and submission of your logbook with a signoff should be required. This
> > would allow us to finally get these type of statistics for all areas of
> > aviation with excellent reliability. Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
ssya...@my-deja.com
"Sula" <su...@shn.org> wrote:
> Caracole wrote:
> >We all believe that soaring is safer than driving to the field.
>
> article). Yet is there any way this belief can be supported?
>
>
I do believe that soaring is safer than flying as I have destroyed a
car at our gliding club, but up to this moment in time I still haven't
had a major incedent YET.
Also as I stay in the same country as the person that made the original
posting and know our road safety statistics, I'm sure I can say that at
least for SA it's safer to glide than to drive.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RHallifax
fly into other flying objects. However, landing may be more dangerous.
Christopher Nicholas
passenger next to him: "What, you're frightened of flying? There's no need -
flying is really safe - it's crashing you want to be frightened of!"
Chris N.
BAToulson
(RHallifax) writes:
>Soaring has been determined to be totally and completely safe when you don't
>fly into other flying objects. However, landing may be more dangerous.
>
You mean the air - ground interface can prove to be the only significant
hazard!
The real knack is to ensure that the number of landings = the number of
takeoff's.
Barney
Flying user
>
> The real knack is to ensure that the number of landings = the number of
> takeoff's.
>
> Barney
Hmm, I suspect that whatever you do and whatever can happen to you and
your glider, the number of landings will ALWAYS be equal to the number
of takeoffs.!! :-))))
...mabe we could better assure that the number of pieces that land is
the same that took off (and in the same order) and they remain so until
final stop on the ground ...
:-))))
--
Miriano
BAToulson
cancel-th...@libero.it (Flying user) writes:
>.mabe we could better assure that the number of pieces that land is
>the same that took off (and in the same order) and they remain so until
>final stop on the ground ...
>
>:-))))
>
>--
>Miriano
>
>
I guess I go along with that !
Barney
EColeson
>Soaring has been determined to be totally and completely safe when you don't
>fly into other flying objects. However, landing may be more dangerous
Newton was right: What goes up really must eventually come down. Never said
much about the quality of the arrival, though, did he? I've observed that the
earth tends to remain resolutely where nature has placed it, and resolved never
again to pick my nose during landings until I'm sure my student means to flare
(unless, of course, my last self-lobotmy wears off ;-)
Cheers,
Eric
Chris Reed
> Hmm, I suspect that whatever you do and whatever can happen to you and
> your glider, the number of landings will ALWAYS be equal to the number
> of takeoffs.!! :-))))
I doubt it. Most pilots must have had a similar experience to me, in my
first K8 flight (probably 10th solo flight). I touched down fine, and
relieved at not messing up the landing let go of the airbrake lever. The
glider immediately took off again, forcing me to make a second landing
(which from memory included 2 or 3 hops).
Add to this the occasional bounce (if we count that as a double landing)
and I've definitely landed more times than I've launched.
Chris Reed
Hannu Niemi
>and I've definitely landed more times than I've launched.
Er,... and launch is what? There's a take-off too, in the bounce ;)
What goes up, must come down (bar extraorbital space vehicles), but then
again to come down, you FIRST must go up...
To me # of lanches is equal to the landings; either bounces don't add to
neither or they do to both.
My 2 centavos de cordoba nicaraguense ;)
RHallifax
>takeoff's.
>
>Barney
Gravity being what it is, that is pretty much assured. The real trick is to
land is such a was as to maintain the same arrangement of body parts as when
you took off. :)
Bob
RHallifax
>glider immediately took off again, forcing me to make a second landing
>(which from memory included 2 or 3 hops).
Powered pilots call them "touch and go." Now how did you log that: three
flights? :)
Bob
Chris Glen-Smith
> To me # of lanches is equal to the landings; either bounces don't add to
> neither or they do to both.
So you do think that if I do couple of good BIG bouces
when I land I can put each one I my log book? :-)
Chris Glen-Smith
Dylan Smith
:
: Add to this the occasional bounce (if we count that as a double landing)
: and I've definitely landed more times than I've launched.
Well, the up portion of the bounce is a takeoff you know ;-)
Flying user
Well, I don't know how's by you, but in my club when someone bounces the
*least* he can espect is someone running by and askin innocently "which
landing should I sign into the log??..."
:-))))
--
Miriano
DGManley
>
Clearly, we need some standardization here. Perhaps Guy, who did such an
excellent job on the scoring software for the 15m (I think) nats, could work
his magic in this arena. Well, that's my two Rupees worth.